Australia to ban incandescent bulbs

SuzannePjam

I never knew that changing the type of bulb you use can make that much of a difference. I'll definitely be switching all of the bulbs in my house as they burn out. It's too bad that people wait until their back is up against a wall to change their ways. I see Australia wouldn't sign the Kyoto treaty, but now that their country is having a major drought they've decided to take some measures against their contribution to global warming.

Australia to ban incandescent bulbs
Plan would phase them out by 2009

CANBERRA, Australia - Australia will be the world’s first country to ban incandescent lightbulbs in a bid to curb Greenhouse gas emissions, with the government saying on Tuesday they would be phased out within three years. Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull said yellow incandescent bulbs, which have been in use virtually unchanged for 125 years, would be replaced by more efficient compact fluorescent bulbs by 2009.
“By that stage you simply won’t be able to buy incandescent lightbulbs, because they won’t meet the energy standard,” Turnbull told local radio.
Australia along with the U.S. has refused to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol setting Greenhouse Gas reduction targets, calling instead for an agreement requiring energy-hungry developing countries like India and China to help combat climate change.
Turnbull said the banning of incandescent bulbs would help trim 800,000 tons from Australia’s current emissions level by 2012 and lower household lighting costs by 66 per cent.
British and Californian lawmakers also have been lobbying for bans on incandescent lightbulbs, which lose much of their energy as heat.
Australia’s conservative Prime Minister John Howard said he would not adopt any Greenhouse targets which hurt the country’s resource-reliant economy.
Australians are per head among the world’s biggest greenhouse gas producers, but climate change issues are shaping up as major concerns for voters in national elections due later this year as severe drought grips the country.

Jeanie

Yeah, I heard this today too SuzannePjam. It's an interesting mandate for our government to make. I can't help wondering if they all have shares in a fluro bulb making company. And please don't remind me of the shame of being governed by a moron who refuses to sign Kyoto. It's just too embarrassing for words. BUT then I guess I've learned to live with a lot of shame about my country in the last 10 years. :(

polaris

this is a pr move if there ever was one ... really - banning incadescent bulbs?? ... by 2009 - people for their own sake should be using CFL's already ... this is an attempt to show like they are doing something without actually doing the tough things that developed countries like that need to make ..

Pacomc79

I've been using some in my high use areas of my apartment for about 2 weeks now. I lowered my living room from about 200 watts to 33 and the quality is not really adversly affected, I prefer a warmer quality but the soft white CFL's I got aren't bad and I'm using a lot less energy. Eventually I'll replace everything with them.

Ultimately we should be setting really tough CAFE standards for automobiles and strongly encouraging automakers to work on cleaner more effective combustion and new clean forms of propulsion. There are loads of different gasoline blends but automakers outside of say honda and toyota have not done enough about emmissions.

Some kind of super high output solar panel research would be nice too. If it were cost effective to live off the grid, I bet a lot of people would.

Skitch Patterson

ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban...

why is this becoming the solution to all problems and issues in the world?

godpt3

they aren't actually banning incandescants. what they're doing is upping the efficency requirements to the point where it is impossible for incandescants to match it.

catefrances

banning incandescent bulbs is just a bandaid answer. while the people will be forced to switch light globes, industry will still be allowed to spew the pollution into the atmosphere. yet again the real problem is not being addressed.

sourdough

Skitch Patterson wrote:

ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban...

why is this becoming the solution to all problems and issues in the world?

Banning certain products or practices can be a good thing if it is proven that certain things are bad and should be eliminated.

I do think this one is a bit of a joke. Australia has a horrible environmental record so it appears to me that this is some sorta media stunt to show Australia's newfound environmental conscious while ignoring bigger issues like their reliance on coal for energy.

A Surprise Left

Australia does needed to focus more on alternative energy sources, we are massively reliant on coal which is a very dirty fuel. Solar and wind power should be used more. I don't think we should have signed Kyoto, why should we hurt our own economy when in comparison to China and India we are but a drop in the ocean? Kyoto is a flawed treaty....

catefrances

A Surprise Left wrote:

Australia does needed to focus more on alternative energy sources, we are massively reliant on coal which is a very dirty fuel. Solar and wind power should be used more. I don't think we should have signed Kyoto, why should we hurt our own economy when in comparison to China and India we are but a drop in the ocean? Kyoto is a flawed treaty....

yeah but wasn't it more a symbolic gesture to sign? that's what i saw it as. and of course there was no chance we were gonna sign it if the americans didn't. not to mention the fact that it'd mean big business would have to come to heel.

Skitch Patterson

sourdough wrote:

Banning certain products or practices can be a good thing if it is proven that certain things are bad and should be eliminated.

nope. If a product is inferior, then it needs to adjust or be left behind. Its up to the developer to make sure their product is marketed and cost effective.

A Surprise Left

cate kyoto is more than simply a symbolic gesture. it would sign australia up to a carbon trading scheme that that would disadvantage our economy without helping the environment much at all. everyone has to sign (u.s, china and india et al) otherwise it would be suicide for australia to sign.

ThumbingMyWay32

catefrances wrote:

banning incandescent bulbs is just a bandaid answer. while the people will be forced to switch light globes, industry will still be allowed to spew the pollution into the atmosphere. yet again the real problem is not being addressed.

Why will people have to switch light globes?

ThumbingMyWay32

A Surprise Left wrote:

cate kyoto is more than simply a symbolic gesture. it would sign australia up to a carbon trading scheme that that would disadvantage our economy without helping the environment much at all. everyone has to sign (u.s, china and india et al) otherwise it would be suicide for australia to sign.

Wow. Make that 2 folks here that understand Kyoto.

catefrances

A Surprise Left wrote:

cate kyoto is more than simply a symbolic gesture. it would sign australia up to a carbon trading scheme that that would disadvantage our economy without helping the environment much at all. everyone has to sign (u.s, china and india et al) otherwise it would be suicide for australia to sign.

yes i know how it works. but it would have been nice to make the gesture. i am not for carbon trading at all. it just allows the industrialised nations to continu to screw with the environment. it doesn't really address the problem.

sourdough

Skitch Patterson wrote:

nope. If a product is inferior, then it needs to adjust or be left behind. Its up to the developer to make sure their product is marketed and cost effective.

What if it is cost effective and works great but has great environmental consequences? Do you think things like DDT should not be banned? Sure it worked great killing bugs and was quite inexpensive to produce, but what about environmental costs?

DinghyDog

-

Scubascott

catefrances wrote:

yeah but wasn't it more a symbolic gesture to sign? that's what i saw it as. and of course there was no chance we were gonna sign it if the americans didn't. not to mention the fact that it'd mean big business would have to come to heel.

Its my understanding that we've inadvertantly met the emission target set for us by Kyoto anyway, so we might as well have signed it.

catefrances

Scubascott wrote:

Its my understanding that we've inadvertantly met the emission target set for us by Kyoto anyway, so we might as well have signed it.

really? where'd you hear that? i thought our carbon footprint was huge.

sourdough

catefrances wrote:

really? where'd you hear that? i thought our carbon footprint was huge.

I'd be really surprised at that too. The coal power plants are extremely inefficient and dirty as hell.

Scubascott

catefrances wrote:

really? where'd you hear that? i thought our carbon footprint was huge.

I could be mistaken. To be honest I'm extremely confused about exactly what we would be expected to do under Kyoto. My understanding is that we were set an emission target of 108% of 1990 levels by 2012, and that we were the only developed country who was allowed to increase our emission levels. As far as I know we are still on track to reach that target, even though we did not sign the treaty. If anyone who understands the deal could explain to me exactly how it works I'd love to hear it, because I'm as confused as hell about it.